4.4 Article

A Pharmacometric Approach to Substitute for a Conventional Dose-Finding Study in Rare Diseases: Example of Phase III Dose Selection for Emicizumab in Hemophilia A

期刊

CLINICAL PHARMACOKINETICS
卷 57, 期 9, 页码 1123-1134

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-017-0616-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chugai
  2. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emicizumab (ACE910) is a bispecific antibody mimicking the cofactor function of activated coagulation factor VIII. In phase I-I/II studies, emicizumab reduced the bleeding frequency in patients with severe hemophilia A, regardless of the presence of factor VIII inhibitors, at once-weekly subcutaneous doses of 0.3, 1, and 3 mg/kg. Using the phase I-I/II study data, population pharmacokinetic and repeated time-to-event (RTTE) modeling were performed to quantitatively characterize the relationship between the pharmacokinetics of emicizumab and reduction in bleeding frequency. Simulations were then performed to identify the minimal exposure expected to achieve zero bleeding events for 1 year in at least 50% of patients and to select the dosing regimens to be tested in phase III studies. The RTTE model adequately predicted the bleeding onset over time as a function of plasma emicizumab concentration. Simulations suggested that plasma emicizumab concentrations of ae 45 mu g/mL should result in zero bleeding events for 1 year in at least 50% of patients. This efficacious exposure provided the basis for selecting previously untested dosing regimens of 1.5 mg/kg once weekly, 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks for phase III studies. A pharmacometric approach guided the phase III dose selection of emicizumab in hemophilia A, without conducting a conventional dose-finding study. Phase III studies with the selected dosing regimens are currently ongoing. This case study indicates that a pharmacometric approach can substitute for a conventional dose-finding study in rare diseases and will streamline the drug development process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据